Difference between revisions of "Open source EMR software: Profiling, insights, and hands-on analysis"

From Clinfowiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(References)
(Methods)
Line 8: Line 8:
  
 
== Methods ==
 
== Methods ==
A literature search was conducted to discover existing and active open-source software. The results are summarized providing guides for the sampled systems and identify any gaps in the published literature related to the topic. Thirty-two papers were reviewed, including the following 13 OSS’s: FreeMED, GNUmed, GNU Health, Hospital OS, HOSxP, OpenEMR, OpenMRS, OSCAR, THIRRA, WorldVista, ZEPRS, ClearHealth, and MedinTux.
+
A literature search was conducted to discover existing and active open-source software. The results are summarized providing guides for the sampled systems and identify any gaps in the published literature related to the topic. Thirty-two papers were reviewed, including the following 13 OSS’s: FreeMED, GNUmed, GNU Health, Hospital OS, HOSxP, [[OpenEMR]], [[OpenMRS]], OSCAR, THIRRA, [[WorldVistA]], ZEPRS, ClearHealth, and MedinTux.
 
The next part of the study was to install the software and give feedback related to hands-on-experience. The software was compared based on the following assessments: technical details, usability, functionality and features, security, user support, developer support, customizability, and ease of installation.
 
The next part of the study was to install the software and give feedback related to hands-on-experience. The software was compared based on the following assessments: technical details, usability, functionality and features, security, user support, developer support, customizability, and ease of installation.
  

Revision as of 20:18, 3 October 2015

This is a review of Kiah, Haiqi, Zaidan, and Zaidan (2014) article, Open Source EMR software: Profiling, insights, and hands-on analysis. [1]

Research Question

The authors attempt to provide a comprehensive guide for open-source software from the implementers prospective.

Background

While there is no evidence that free or Free_and_Open_Source_EMRs (OSS) is superior to close-source software, open-source software is going in popularity. The hope is that open-source software will help overcome financial barriers to HIT adoption. Comparing the available open source options is an important step in HIT adoption process. The authors compare 13 available and active OSS the on functionality, usability, and security. The other aspects are whether there is sufficient support for both users and developers.

Methods

A literature search was conducted to discover existing and active open-source software. The results are summarized providing guides for the sampled systems and identify any gaps in the published literature related to the topic. Thirty-two papers were reviewed, including the following 13 OSS’s: FreeMED, GNUmed, GNU Health, Hospital OS, HOSxP, OpenEMR, OpenMRS, OSCAR, THIRRA, WorldVistA, ZEPRS, ClearHealth, and MedinTux. The next part of the study was to install the software and give feedback related to hands-on-experience. The software was compared based on the following assessments: technical details, usability, functionality and features, security, user support, developer support, customizability, and ease of installation.

Results

The surveyed articles did not provide information that fulfill the target object. In the hand-on study, no system met the industry standards. The easiest systems to install were GNUmed, OpenEMR, and ZEPRS. OpenEMR had the best overall performance, but fell short for customizability and developer support. GNUmed provided the most security. OpenMRS is capable of offering the full spectrum of functionalities and is chosen to use in foreign countries with resource-constrained environments. HOSxP and MeinTux provide competitive functionality. ZEPRS performed poorly. WorldVista is a mature system providing user flexibility.


Discussion

The literature review highlighted the barrier and hurdles to implementing OSS’s. The OSS’s evaluated using hands-on experience, fulfilled structural and procedural requirements ranging between minimal and full functional levels. Only a few of the OSS in the study met communication, privacy, and security requirements at the functional level. The ethical, cultural, and consumer requirements remain unfulfilled. OpenMRS is the most widely used OSS deployed in multiple countries.


Conclusion

The OSS are gaining in popularity even though there is no evidence that OSS are superior to commercial systems. However, OSSs can provide a base for a more comprehensive healthcare solutions. Overall, OSS application are lacking in security, interoperability, and developer support. Available OSSs require future in-depth investigation to profile the full spectrum of their functionality.

Comments

This study provides a great foundation for evaluating open-source system. While OSSs do not provide the highest level usability, functionality, and security, they are on their way to being strong competitors to close-source systems. It is important to have viable low cost options that can be successful implemented in a recourse constrained environment. Furthermore, if these low cost system are competitive with higher priced system (commonly closed-sources systems), competitors will make their product more marketable by lower their prices or offering additional services. Financial barriers significantly contribute to low HIT adoption rates.

References

  1. Kiah M. L. M., Haiqi, A.., Zaidan B. B., and Zaidan, A. A. (2014). Open source EMR software: Profiling, insights, and hands-on analysis. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 117, 360-382. Retrieved from http://www.pubfacts.com/detail/25070757/Open-source-EMR-software:-profiling-insights-and-hands-on-analysis/